Tafsir of Al Imran 3:193

This is also in the meaning of a statement. As the Shaykh al-Islam [al-Bulqini] stated: it is a narration of another supplication based on their contemplation of the scriptural evidence (the hearing of the call) after the narration of their previous supplication which was based on their contemplation of the definitive rational evidence. It is not hidden that such contemplation—in general—requires this statement.

In initiating the introduction of the supplication with "calling" (nida), there is an indication of the perfection of their focus toward their Lord and their lack of negligence regarding Him, while manifesting the perfection of humbleness and supplication to the Bestower of grace and bounty. The emphasis (inna) signifies that this proceeded from them with an abundance of desire, increased concern, and perfection of zeal.

The "caller" refers to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace; this is what is reported from Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Jurayj, and it was chosen by al-Jubba’i and others.

It has been said: The meaning is the Qur’an. This is narrated from Muhammad ibn Ka’b al-Qurazi and Qatadah, and it was chosen by al-Tabari, who reasoned that not everyone heard or saw the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, while the Qur’an is manifest and remains through the passage of days and ages—heard by those who reached the era of its revelation and those who did not.

Those who hold the first view may say: Whoever the mission and call of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, reached, it is permissible for him to say "we heard a caller," even if there is a degree of metaphor in it. Furthermore, the intent of "calling" (nida) is the supplication, and its attribution to him, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is more famous and manifest. For Allah the Exalted has said: "Invite (*ud’) to the way of your Lord," "Call (*ad’u) to Allah," and "[a] caller (*da’iyan) to Allah." It is literal to him, peace and blessings be upon him, and it is to the Qur’an in the manner of the saying: "The burial mounds call to you while they are silent," as their inhabitants under the earth are hushed.

The nunation (tanwin) in "a caller" (munadiyan) is for exaltation (tafkhim). Its preference over "the inviter" (al-da’i) is to point to the perfection of his concern regarding the call and its delivery to the near and far, due to what it contains of an indication of raising the voice. It was his noble state, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in speeches to raise his voice literally. In the report: "When the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave a speech, his eyes would redden, his voice would rise, and his anger would intensify, as if he were a warner of an army, saying: 'They have come upon you in the morning or in the evening!'"

Since the nida (call) is specific to what it leads to and ends with, it is made transitive with the particle lam (for) and ila (to) at times. The lam in "for the faith" (lil-iman) is on its literal meaning; there is no need to make it mean "to" (ila) or the letter ba’, nor to make it mean "cause" (‘illah) as some have tended to do.

The sentence "calling" (yunadi) is in the position of the second object of "we have heard" (sami’na), according to the view of al-Akhfash and many grammarians regarding the transitivity of "to hear" to two objects. There is no ellipsis in the speech. The majority held that it does not become transitive except to one, and this was chosen by Ibn al-Hajib. He said in his Amali: "It might be imagined that 'hearing' is transitive to two objects in terms of meaning and usage. As for meaning, it is because it depends on the heard thing; as for usage, it is because of their saying: 'I heard Zayd saying that' and 'I heard him saying,' and the saying of the Exalted: 'Do they hear you when you call?' But there is no basis for this, because it is sufficient for its attachment to the heard thing (the sound), not the one who is heard. The one who is heard is like the one who is smelled from; just as 'smelling' is not transitive except to one, so is 'hearing.' It is from what has an elided genitive-annexed (mudaf) with the genitive-annexed-to (mudaf ilayhi) taking its place due to the knowledge of it, and the state (hal) is mentioned after it clarifying it. In 'Do they hear you when you call,' it is estimated as: 'Do they hear your voices.'"

Al-Zamakhshari made the heard thing an adjective after an indefinite noun and a state after a definite noun, and this is the manifest view. Some investigators claimed that what is most appropriate for the meaning in what he made a state or adjective is to construe it as a substitute (badal) by interpreting the verb as a verbal noun (masdar), as some grammarians see it, but it is rare in usage. Thus, the adjectival or state usage was preferred.

Some claimed that if "hearing" occurs on other than sound, a present-tense verb indicating sound must be mentioned after it, and nothing else is permissible. This is incorrect, due to the occurrence of the adverb and the active participle, as in "I heard him doing [so]."

In attaching "hearing" to the essence, there is an exaggeration in verifying it and an indication of its occurrence without an intermediary when the heard thing issues from the speaker. In releasing "a caller" first, where the Exalted said "a caller" without mentioning what he called to, then His saying after: "calling to faith," there is—as is not hidden—the glorification of the status of the caller and the called-to. If it had been said from the start "a caller to faith," it would not have had this standing.

The explicit object of "calling" (yunadi) is elided to indicate generality, meaning: he calls every single one "that you believe in your Lord," meaning: that you believe in Him, on the basis that "that" (an) is exegetical (tafsiriyyah), or [that] it is "by that you believe" (bi-an tu’minu) on the basis that it is a verbal noun (masdariyyah). According to the first, "believe" is an exegesis for "calling," because his call is the very same as his saying: "Believe." The estimate is: "He calls to faith," i.e., he says: "Believe." It is not an exegesis for "the faith" as was imagined. According to the second, "by that you believe" is related to "calling," because it is what is called to, and it is not a substitute for "the faith" as some claimed.

Some investigators limited themselves to the possibility of the verbal noun, because many grammarians reject the exegetical possibility due to the artificiality it contains. Those who chose it said: The verbal noun requires interpretation as a noun, which causes the meaning of the request intended by the speech to be lost.

It was answered that the request is estimated in the interpretation if it enters upon an imperative, and similarly, what is appropriate for the past and future is estimated if it enters upon them. One should not make the result of the whole a mere verbal noun meaning, lest the intention of the imperative and its likes be lost. In exposing the title of Lordship, there is an indication of some of the evidences for Him, the Exalted, and a symbol of His blessing upon those addressed, so that they may remember them and hasten to comply with the command. In the release of "the faith" and then its restriction, there is an exaltation of its status.

"So we believed" (fa-amanna) is coordinated to "we have heard." The coordination with fa (so/then) indicates the haste of acceptance and the causality of faith from the hearing without delay. The meaning: "So we believed in our Lord when we were called to that." Abu Mansur said: In it is evidence of the invalidity of the exception (istithna') in faith (i.e., saying "I am a believer, if Allah wills"). It is not hidden how distant this is.

"Our Lord" is repeated—as it is said—for supplication and to manifest the perfection of submission, and to offer the acknowledgment of His Lordship, the Exalted, along with faith in Him.

"So forgive us" is predicated upon the belief in Him, the Exalted, and the acknowledgment of His Lordship, as the fa indicates, meaning: conceal our sins for us—i.e., our major sins—and "remit from us our evil deeds"—i.e., our minor sins. It has been said: "Sins" refers to the past offenses, and "evil deeds" refers to what came after them. It has been said: The former is what a human commits while knowing it is an offense, and the latter is what he commits while ignorant of that. The first is the interpretation narrated from Ibn Abbas.

It is supported by the fact that it is appropriate for the language, because "sin" (dhanb) is taken from the tail (dhanab), and it is used for what the consequence is feared—which is the major sin—because of the great punishment that follows it. For this reason, it is called a consequence (tabi’ah) in consideration of what follows it of punishment, as al-Raghib stated. As for the "evil deed" (sayyi’ah), it is from "badness" (su’), which is what is considered ugly. For this reason, it is countered by "goodness," so it is lighter. Its support is that forgiveness is exclusive to the action of Allah the Exalted, while "remission" (takfir) might be used for the action of the servant—as it is said: "He made an atonement (kaffara) for his oath." This necessitates the second being lighter than the first, upon bearing what it contains; it only necessitates mere lightness. As for the first being major sins and the second being minor sins in the intended meaning, it is not permissible that the first and second be what was mentioned in the third view, for the lightness and lack thereof in it is something that has no covering, as is not hidden. Then, what is understood from many expressions of the linguists is the lack of difference between "forgiveness" (ghufran) and "remission" (takfir); indeed, some of them explicitly stated that their meaning is one.

It has been said: In "remission," there is an additional meaning, which is covering for safety from scandal. It has been said: It is often considered in it the meaning of removal and erasure, and this is why it is made transitive with ‘an (from). Forgiveness is not like that.

In mentioning "for us" and "from us" in the verse—even though if it were said "forgive our hearts and remit our evil deeds" it would have conveyed the intended purpose—there is a gesture toward the abundance of desire for these two things.

Some claimed that the first supplication is inclusive of the supplication for Allah's enabling one to repent, because it is the cause for the forgiveness of major sins, and that the second supplication is inclusive of the request for enabling from Him, the Exalted, to avoid major sins, because it is the cause for the remission of minor sins. You know that forgiveness is not conditioned upon repentance according to the Ash’arites, and some of them argued with this verse for that, since they requested forgiveness without mentioning repentance—indeed, without repentance—by the indication of the fa of sequence. This is what has been said, and the verification of what is in it will come, so reflect.

"And cause us to die with the righteous" means: specified by being enrolled in their order and counted among their company. There is no room for the company to be temporal, as some of them died before and some will die after. In their requesting death and attributing it to Allah the Exalted, there is an indication that they love meeting Allah the Exalted, and whoever loves meeting Allah, Allah loves meeting him.

"Righteous" (abrar) is the plural of barr (virtuous), like "lords" (arbab) is the plural of rabb (lord). It has been said: It is the plural of barr (pious/dutiful), like "companions" (ashab) is the plural of sahib (companion). This was weakened on the basis that fa’il is not pluralized as af’al, and that ashab is the plural of sahb (with sukun) or sahib (with kasrah), a reduced form of sahib by eliding the alif.

Some of the people of Arabic affirmed it and made it rare. The point of their saying "with the righteous" instead of "as righteous" is the humiliation, and that the meaning is: We are not righteous, so enroll us with them and make us among their followers. In al-Kashshaf: In that is a belittling of the soul and good manners, while incorporating exaggeration, because it is of the category of "he is one of the scholars" rather than "a scholar."